Thanks for your feedback. This article did have a few more ins and outs than normal, so perhaps it isn't my best style-wise. I tried to get the important facts out first and then narrow down onto the more specific pieces. That is standard journalism practice. If you feel that I didn't do that properly, perhaps you are correct, I kind of don't like my intro, but do feel things pick up after that.
Outside of style, I think this is perhaps the most important article I've ever done.
I do appreciate your feedback, but my writing has been competent enough to keep me fed and sheltered for the last three years, and has led to a book deal.
I am well aware of libel and ethics laws. And am confident in my article. My article states that the marketcap was fake. That is a fact. That BanxShares would be removed from CMC, that happened. That the volume was made up of off market trades that could not be verified as real, that is also a fact and something Lyford admitted. That the projections put on Banxcapital.com/investors were misleading and unrealistic, judging by any industry standards, that is also true. That Banx's code was copied from Foocoin, which isn't even a coin but a template, also true. That C-Cex and Mark disagree on what caused them to remove Banx is a fact (I did not take a position on who was right). That people who bought Mining contracts have been switched to Banx, not a fact but something Mark Lyford told me himself.
Exposing scams like Paycoin and potential scams like Banx is my contribution to this space.
Again, thank you for your constructive criticism, I am simply trying to make you guys aware of this.
Topic: Article on Banx (Read 6492 times)
